Lay & Anor v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1678

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Lay and Anor v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs

[2000] FCA 1678

SIAT FUN LAY AND MUHAR SAHURI V MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS V 629 OF 2000

NORTH J 11 OCTOBER 2000 MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 629 OF 2000

BETWEEN: SIAT FUN LAY

FIRST APPLICANT

MUHAR SAHURI

SECOND APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: NORTH J

DATE OF ORDER: 11 OCTOBER 2000

WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application is dismissed. 2. The first applicant is to pay the costs of the respondent of and incidental to the application, including the costs of the directions hearing held on 2 October 2000 but excluding the costs of the directions hearing held on 5 October 2000. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 629 OF 2000

BETWEEN: SIAT FUN LAY

FIRST APPLICANT

MUHAR SAHURI

SECOND APPLICANT

AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: NORTH J

DATE: 11 OCTOBER 2000

PLACE: MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction 1 This is an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) made on 4 July 2000 in which the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (the respondent) to refuse to grant Ms Siat Fun Lay, the first applicant, a protection visa. 2 The second applicant, Mr Muhar Sahuri, is the first applicant's boyfriend. His application for a protection visa was also rejected by the delegate of the respondent, and he submitted a joint application to the Tribunal with the first applicant for review of the delegate's decision. The Tribunal also affirmed the delegate's decision in respect of the second applicant. 3 Although both applicants are named in the application for review in this Court, no argument was presented on behalf of the second applicant. Hence, references to the "applicant" in these reasons are references to the first applicant, Ms. Siat Fun Lay.